The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-31
THE KANSAS LIQUOR CASES.
The Main Point at Issue Is the Constitution
ality of the State Law.

The Main Point at Issue Is the Constitutions
ality of the State Law.
Topeka (kan-l Special.
I secured to-day statement of all the i'm
portant facts connected with the Kansas liq uor
cases now in the United States Supreme Court
from Judge j. W. Gleed. of this city. one Of the
attorneys representing the State, and the
who has given the closest personal attention to
the business. Mr.. Gleed says there three
Kansas cases now IN the federal courts in
volving practically the same question, which is
the constitutonality of the prohibitory law
far as 1t relates to the manufacturing not the
sale, of intoxicating liquors One of these is the
Ziebold & Hagelin case, which was instituted
some time after the other two. At
torney general Bradford has had excu-
sive charge of this case, and has been
without assistant counsel in it, and
has had no authority to employ assistant
counsel In the other two cases-viz. the
Muegler and John Walruff cases-he has had
assistance. A concurrent resolution adopted by
the Senate and House of Represen tatives of the
State of Kansas in February, 1856. authorized
the Governor and Attorney general to employ
assistant counsel to prosecute these cases, the
first in the Supreme, and the second then pend
ing in the United States Circuit Court for the
district os Kansas. This authority extended
only to those which were specifically men
toned in the resolution. In accordance with
the resolution, Peck q Johnson and Gleed &
Gleed. of Topeka and George J. Barker. of
Lawrence, retained.
The of Mueger against the State OF Kan
in the Supreme Court of the United
States upon writ Of error to the Supreme
volved was the right of the State to prohibit
the manufacture of Intoxicating liquors without
making compensation to the manufacturer for
loss in value of his property. This was the first
in which :his question was raised. This
case was briefed and personally submitted to
the Supreme Court In April last by Mr.. Gleed
for the State. and Senator Vest, of Missouri. for
Mueger and it has neither been reargued nor
reset The case of the State vs.. ~Walruff ct al.
was removed from the Douglas county District
Court to the United States Circuit Court
motion to remand overruied by Judge
Brewer. The case was on its merits, submit
ago. and is now awaiting the decision of Judge
Brewer. 1t is understood that he will withhold
his decision until the Muegler case is decided by
the Supreme Court
The impression has gone out that the consti-
tutlonallry of the entire prohIb.tOry law Is In
volyed in these cases. This is error. The
Supreme Court has already decided that the pro-
hibitory law, SO far 1t relates to selling, is
constitutional. and the only question in these
cases 10 whether the manufacture can be constl-
tutonally prohibited without onpensarion. Mr..
Gleed says in regard to the Ziebold d Hagelin
.'Mr Bradford has filed very complete brief,
in which all the authorities are cited and all the
points covered, SO that no great harm was
done by the absence of the Attorney general
when the oral argument was made. But. if such
were not the case, no blame could attach to Mr.
Bradford in the face of the stipulation made
with the Kansas attorney under which tho case
was submitted in May last. Senator Vest and
Mr.. Choate now attorneys in the case for
the brewers, but the case was at all times the
same and the original attorneys are still In it.
They should have adhered to the terms of the
stipulation and Mr.. Bradford fully justi-
fed In expecting them to do so. The refusal OF
and give Mr.. Bradford an opportunity to make
oral argument may mean that the court is
ready decide in favor of the State, and
cares to hear more arguments